Whether it is Christians like Matthew West speaking about abortion in his encouraging blog “Life, Precious Life” or Christians like Chris Broussard speaking out against homosexuality on ESPN, the general response is that politics and religion should not mix. Moreover, these subjects incite quite the conversation and reveal the political, biblical, and theological ignorance of many Americans, especially among “Christians” concerning the “Separation of Church and State.”

Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation”

The ubiquitous idea of the unequivocal “Separation of Church and State” rests upon a mischaracterization of Thomas Jefferson’s famous phrase about a “Wall of Separation” between the government and religion. Unfortunately this phrase has been divorced from its historical context and misrepresented by the masses. Furthermore, it has been used as a political tool by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Most people do not know that Jefferson’s statement originated in a discourse with the Danbury Baptist Association in respect to the possibility that a state sanctioned denomination would be established. Their letter to Mr. Jefferson was inquiring as to the President’s commitment to the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which reads, “Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” In reply Mr. Jefferson assured the good people of Danbury that he contemplated with “sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” In other words Jefferson was not suggesting that religion and politics could not mix, but rather that he would uphold the Establishment Clause by not allowing the establishment of a state sanctioned denomination under his charge.

It is absurd to think that the sentiment of Jefferson’s “Wall” or the Establishment Clause banned any religious influence upon politics or public life when the very founding documents invoke the creator and limit government’s role in religion. Nowhere does the constitution limit religious influence or involvement in governmental affairs.

The Supreme Court Strengthens the “Wall”

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has aided in the furtherance of the “Wall of Separation” concept of the Establishment Clause. Their first use can be traced back to 1879 with Reynolds v. United States when the Court invoked Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation.” To their credit the 1879 ruling seemed to understand Jefferson’s meaning that the government could not legislate regarding the establishment of or free exercise of a person’s religious belief, but were free to legislate on matters of action which seemed detrimental to society which in this case was polygamy.

The case that catapulted this Separation phrase was in1947in Everson v. Board of Education. While the Court upheld the right of the citizens to use public transportation to carry children to religious schools the concept of religious separation from influence on government affairs was solidified by the Court’s opinion. In that opinion Justice Hugo Black expanded upon Jefferson’s intent when he wrote: “… in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’” Whereupon he concluded “that wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The most egregious deviation from the original intent of the establishment cause was when he stated that “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.” These three little words, “and vice versa,” have forever established the modern sentiment of the “Separation between Church and State.” Moreover, they have given rise to the sentiment that the religious, Christians especially, should stick to loving people and stay out of political issues. Unfortunately, those who hold to such opinions are ignorant to the true nature of politics.

Politics Defined

Politics in the modern understanding is merely the activities of government. Merriam-Webster defines politics as the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy. While partially correct, these definitions miss the underlying issues that make up politics. The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary gives one of the fullest definitions of politics:

The science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace and prosperity; comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. Politics, as a science or an art, is a subject of vast extent and importance. (Emphasis added)

Politics involves ethics and morals! Not only does politics involve ethics and morals; Politics includes the protection of citizen’s rights by preserving and improving the morality of its citizens. Yet, Christians are told that their moral beliefs about political issues such as abortion or marriage have no place in politics. While Christians are admonished for expressing their moral beliefs, the government consistently legislates about moral issues. One doesn’t have to isolate morality to the hot button issues. For instance, there are laws regarding the selling and buying of property which mandate full disclosure of ownership and boundary lines assuring that an immoral selling of property owned by someone else does not happen. All of politics involves moral decisions and all legislative actions are based upon morality. Take for instance the issue of taxation today. Constantly certain political groups state that the wealthiest Americans should be required to pay their fair share. In order to determine what is fair a moral judgment must be made. Government officials and fellow Americans insist that such a moral judgment be made as long as it does not involve Christians make moral judgments based upon biblical beliefs. Therefore, insisting that moral beliefs should be separated from politics is absurd.

Christians & Politics

The idea that Christians should not interject biblical morality into the political discussion is not isolated to those outside the Church. There are believers who would suggest that Christians should just love folks and refrain from speaking out against political issues. The modern mantra is stated like this; “We are known more for what we are against than what we are for.” Those Christians who suggest that followers of Christ are obligated to keep their religious beliefs isolated from the political discussion have grossly misunderstood the biblical teachings on this issue. God’s word is very clear about the issue of politics and Christianity. Paul writes about politics. Jesus speaks about political issues. Peter writes about politics. The Bible deals with politics. As Christians we must speak about political issues. After all if politics deal with morality Christians have a specific moral code – the Bible. Moreover, in this country the citizens have a built in system that allows them to redress the government and share their opinions under the auspices of the very amendment which people attempt to use to silence them.

The problem is not that politics and religion often interact. The real problem is the conflict over the moral standards upon which political decision are made. Society has decided that morality should be relative the cultural context and have the ability to evolve as culture evolves. Christianity, however, points to an absolute moral standard emanating from the character of an eternally holy God who is the same yesterday, to day, and forever. When confronted with such an absolute unwavering standard of morality humanity cannot hide from the fact that all have fallen short of that standard and stand condemned before the Standard Giver.

We Must Speak

Let us not be discouraged from speaking by this “façade of separation.” My fellow follower of Christ, I must speak to the political issues of the day in light of God’s standard of morality. I must address the sinfulness of humanity in light of God’s holy Word. I must redress the morally charged politics of our day. If that means men despise me, then I must be despised. If that means that men hate me, then I must be hated. After all Jesus said, “Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake…” (Matthew 10.21-22 ESV). Moreover, “if the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18 ESV).

The truth is that until men see the exceeding sinfulness of sin they will in no wise understand their need for a savior. Therefore, I must proclaim the whole truth of the gospel of Christ especially when the political issues of our society are at enmity with this truth. Yes, I know we must “speak the truth in love,” but I also know not everyone will love the truth spoken, nor the speaker of the truth.

There is a terribly disparaging idiopathic belief on the Left which suggests many conservatives merely support Dr. Ben Carson because he is a comfortable “Safe Negro” who can attack President Obama without the racial kickback feared by white conservatives. The credulity of the left wing in this country never ceases to amaze me. Unfortunately I think they are fabricating a narrative rather than falling victim to naiveté. While I understand that racism still exists in this country, it is clear to me that the fires of racial tension are being stocked heavily by the hands of the left wing. This white man is sick and tired of being maligned by the left wing because of my race. This white man is sick and tired of being labeled as a racist merely for disagreeing with the worldview and political agenda of a democratic president who happens to be black. Moreover, this Alabamian is sick and tired of being arbitrarily assumed guilty of racism because of the absolutely unholy and sinful atrocities against black people which were perpetrated by whites under the democratic leadership of people like George Wallace. Alabamians of the past were guilty of injustices and horrible brutality, but Alabamians of the 21st century have come a long way since those days. Yes, many Alabamians, and Americans, have a long way to go, but as a whole we have made great progress with each generation to overcome the sins of our fathers. So, do not malign me because of your presuppositional view of my ethnicity and geographical location.

In spite of what the left may think, I know that when I look at a candidate like Dr. Ben Carson the degree of melanin in his skin is the last thing on my mind. The first thing that attracted me to Dr. Carson was his inspirational life story. Long before he decided to run for president I fell in love with the man and his story. His life epitomizes the American Dream. He is an inspiration because of his great accomplishments in spite of the poverty in to which he was born.

Once he decided to run as president it was his worldview, not the pigment of his skin, which attracted me to him as a candidate. He resonates with me because of his beliefs, both spiritually and politically. Moreover, I was impressed by his character and humility. Finally, I do appreciate his ethnicity. He is an inspiration to me and should be an inspiration to all men especially black men. He overcame the demons of poverty. He overcame the demons of racism. He overcame the demons within by the grace of God. He should be an inspiration to all men regardless of their degree of melanin. He is an inspiration to the human race. I love him because of who he is; what he believes; and what he can do to restore this nation to its former greatness. #StayinitBen

Once again the Great State of Alabama finds itself under the watchful gaze of the world as it deals with yet another supposed “civil rights” issue, namely “same sex marriage.” While one could (and should) debate the veracity of aligning same sex marriage with civil rights, that will not be the focus of this discussion. This discussion will attempt to define the issue of same sex marriage by examining the fundamental arguments incipient to the debate from both those for and against this issue. The tenants of the arguments seem to fall under three main headings; political, sociological, and moral. One may wonder why religion is not expressly stated as a tenant. Since morality is both a religious and philosophical issue it seemed pithier to combine them under the heading of morality. Now that all efforts to be pithy have been overcome by the previous sentence coupled with the current one let the discussion begin.

Advocates for the legalization of same sex marriage generally lead into the debate with the political and sociological tenants in order to appeal to the emotional aspect of love, happiness, equality, and fairness. The political implication is that same sex marriage supporters want to gain the same political and/or legal benefits marriage affords heterosexual couples. In other words same sex marriage proponents want the tax benefits and asunder legal abilities and protections a heterosexual marriage guarantees (i.e., social security benefits, medical benefits, parental rights, etc.). Taken at face value with no concern for the remaining tenants this seems to be a fair argument. However, the political argument is coupled if not supported by the sociological argument and must be debated in light of both. Using the sociological argument, advocates of same sex marriage appeal to the benefits of marriage for the society as a whole. They cite, for instance, statistical evidence claiming the overall sociological benefits marriage has on the individual, the couple, the family, and by extension the community.[1] Again, it appears to be fair and legitimate to argue that marriage in general benefits society as a whole. Thus, more marriages, regardless of gender, should be of more benefit to societal health.

One might argue, however, that their reason for framing the argument thusly is to attempt to dismiss the moral tenant completely. This may be intentional as a tactic to lure opponents to cede the morality of same sex marriage unwittingly or an attempt by the advocate to avoid the issue altogether. Unfortunately for them, morality is at the heart of the debate regardless of which tenant the argument is based upon. Yet, same sex marriage advocates, almost compulsively, turn the argument to the appeal for equality in the expression of love. Here they assert in a sense that the “heart wants what the heart wants.” Or, “a person cannot help who they love.” Or, “who are you to tell a person who they can and cannot love.” Or, this hashtag from a Facebook post “#lovehasnogender.” Now, the debate has come full circle and every aspect of the argument, including morality, is in play.

Even the appeal to the 14th Amendment opens the door to the morality debate because the American society has placed moral limits on the freedoms they hope to expand for gay couples. “How so,” one might ask. The same people who post #lovehasnogender would probably not be so inclined to post #lovehasnoage (i.e., pedophilia); #loveisnotonlymonogamous (i.e., polygamy); #lovehasnorelationalboundary (i.e., incest); #lovetranscendsspecies (i.e., bestiality). Surely, no one for same sex marriage would suggest that there should be absolutely no limits on love and marriage. If, society decides that even minimal limits are to be placed on one’s freedom to love and marry whomever and whatever they please, then society must concede that morality plays a role in defining the nature and function of marriage. The argument then becomes about which philosophy of life, or worldview, best serves the betterment of society. No longer is it merely a matter of political and legal perks, but of the purpose and function of marriage in a society. What is the role of sexuality in the human creature? What is morally acceptable as it relates to the purpose and function of marriage to include the nature of sexuality? Who determines the stander for by which these issues defined? How does one determine know the truth of the conclusion? What or who determines the moral compass upon which these truths are based? Are they left to the norms and mores of society potentially changing with each passing generation? If, so where does it stop? If this then, is a debate, and a debate about morality, then each side should be free to express an argument about the morality of same sex marriage. The following is my personal opinion of marriage based on a biblical worldview.

I am of the opinion that same sex marriage is naturally and morally wrong. While there may be some anomalies, generally creatures and plants are divided into two sexes – male and female. If one observes nature he will quickly see that opposite sexes are generally attracted to one another for the purpose of reproducing and preserving their respective species. This natural desire to procreate seems to be true in the human creature as well. The process by which procreation is accomplished is through sexual activity. Therefore, while sex is pleasurable, regardless of the issue of procreation, the primary function of sexual activity seems to be procreation with pleasure being both an incentive and benefit. If the fundamental function of sex is procreation then sex is by nature designed to be experience between males and females. Moreover, the sex drive inherent in human beings seems to be the natural force designed to cause males to be attracted to females, and vice versa, to facilitate and satisfy the natural desire and pleasures associated with the act. Therefore, homosexuality is undeniably an unnatural use of sex and is merely an attempt to satisfy the desire and pleasure of sex in an unnatural and unintended way. This is why the Apostle Paul writes in Romans that the “women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1.26-27 ESV).

History seems to consistently show that marriage became the natural means of satisfying the desire to procreate and eventually develop societal units. It appears that through natural sexual attraction and the need to procreate; familial bonds were formed to accomplish this innate desire. Thus this heterosexual unit of husband and wife, with their offspring, became the foundation of society. Upon this foundation people groups developed into clans, states, and eventually nations. As stated earlier the statistics show that society is strengthened by these monogamous marital bonds and people groups are sustained through the production of offspring through these heterosexual relationships. Granted, history has also show that humanity has deviated greatly from these natural tendencies via homosexuality, polygamy, polyandry, prostitution, divorce, cohabitation, etc. Yet, these deviations are not and have never been the norm of a healthy society. In fact they have been the demise of many societies through history. Unfortunately, humans seem to never learn from the past and, as they say, are doomed to repeat it.

These natural tendencies seem to be inherent in the DNA of creation. The consistency with which they are found throughout the world regardless of government or religion indicates that they have been hard wired into to our being. This presupposes a master transcendent designer. The question now becomes who is that designer? What is His nature? Why did He create us thus? In my opinion Christianity answers all of these questions in a spectacular way. If so, then, it makes sense that the God of the Bible would expressly declare homosexuality to be an abomination[2] because it undermines the purpose for which He created men and women.[3] Therefore, I believe that homosexuality and same sex marriage are wrong naturally and morally, because they directly conflict with the inherent purpose of creation.

[2]Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Leviticus 18.22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20.13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

[3] Ibid., Genesis 2.24: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Malachi 2.15: “Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.”

You have been given an enormous opportunity and an important responsibility by virtue of the resent midterm election results. On behalf of my fellow citizens I urge you and your fellow legislators not to squander this historic opportunity. This is your opportunity to restore the damage done to this great nation by the current administration.
For the past 6 years the President and the Democrat party have systematically legislated in contrast to the will of the people. For the past 6 years this administration has systematically trampled on the Constitution. Please hear us loud and clear. Contrary to the spin of the mainstream media, we DO NOT want you to work with the Democrat party. We DO NOT want you to compromise or present a Republican alternative to the Democrat party agenda. If we wanted more of the same we would not have flipped the balance of power in the Senate or increased the Republican influence in the House.
Do not think that you have to legislate for legislation sake. We want you to legislate responsibly beginning with legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act which we believe is the most destructive legislation since the New Deal. We know that the President will veto the legislation. Please put him on record as vetoing the bill. When he does veto the bill we want you to send legislation after legislation to his desk systematically dismantling the Affordable Care Act. This is the preeminent work we expect from this newly Republican controlled Congress. We do not care that President Obama will veto these acts. We want him on record doing so.
Once you have completed this task we want you to get the federal government out of our way so that we may prosper individually and nationally. We only expect legislation that will facilitate an atmosphere of freedom that will allow the capitalistic engine of the free market to create jobs and restore our economy to its former glory. We DO NOT want a Republican version of immigration reform. We want you to protect our boarders and see to it that the immigration laws currently on the books are enforced by the executive branch. We want you to protect our Constitution and reinvigorate the notion of American exceptionalism: The idea that this country is unique and exceptional in its founding, ideology, and influence in this world by virtue of the exceptional success and freedom this nation has enjoyed and facilitated globally.

There has never been a nation in all of history that has accomplished so much in so short a time as America. There has never been another nation in history to have championed freedom for all of humanity like America. There has never been a super power in all of history which has been so responsible and so benevolent with the power and influence than America. That is why America is exceptional. We expect you to keep her that way.
We will give you a progress report in November 8, 2016.
Sincerely,
Ronnie J. Knight, Jr.

I am very sorry to all of those who have been told by the federal government that you must either work for free or take unpaid leave due to the government shutdown. You are right to be angry. However, please make sure that you channel your anger correctly. The government shutdown is merely a symptom of the real issue. If the “government” would address the real problem there would be no shutdown. The real problem in this country is not the debt limit but the congressional spending addiction. Point your finger in the face of your elected officials and demand that they deal with the insatiable spending problem in Washington, D.C. If this country would control spending there would be not need to borrow and thus no need to raise the debt limit and no shutdown battle.

At present the U.S. is $16.7 trillion dollars in debt. Our current debt ceiling is $16.69 trillion. Moreover, the Federal Government borrows nearly $5 billion every business day. The real problem is that the government does not have the income to pay its employees or its other expenditures on any given day of the week. The U.S. Government is running perpetually in the red. Our nation has an addiction to spending money that we do not have. The Congress has not passed a budget in at least 4 years. We cannot continue to sustain this economic strategy indefinitely. This partial shutdown is merely a foreshadowing of the collapse that will come if we do not change our fiscal policy. This is not a democrat or republican problem this is a bipartisan problem in Washington that needs to end.

If our government were a business it would be bankrupt. No lender would continue to loan capital to a business with expenditures which constantly exceeded its revenue. That is the current situation in our country. One might say, “Let’s increase the revenue.” Well, that generally involves increasing taxes on citizens. This, of course has been the mantra of the democrat party over the years. They say that we must make the rich pay their fair share so that we can increase the revenue and lower our deficit. There’s only one problem with that. The top10% of wage earners in the country already pay 70% of all Federal Income Taxes. Conversely the bottom 50% of all wage earners pay only 2% of all Federal Income taxes. It seems that the richest among us are paying far more than their fair share already. What’s more is that just under ½ of wage earners pay absolutely no income tax.

Revenue is not really the issue. In 2012 the Congressional Budget Office reported a 6% increase in tax revenues. The CBO estimated an 11% increase for 2013. Yet, the federal government has out spent the increase and is still begging and borrowing to make ends meet. This cannot keep on or we will see an economic crisis even more devastating than the most recent recession.

The current shutdown is merely a symptom of the bigger spending problem in Washington, D. C. Let us focus on the real problem. Let us focus our anger on congress and channel our energy towards electing representatives and senators who understand the importance of working from a balanced budget rather than breaking the bank.

Over the course of the past several years it seems that the conservative ideology upon which the party was founded has been morphed into an ideological doppelganger of the Democrat Party platform. Rather than standing firm on conservative values the Republican Party appears to have decided to present alternatives of the Democrat Party’s platform. In essence republicans have put democrats in the drives seat. To what end does this serve the party. Moreover, how does this harmonize with conservatism? The Republican Party should not be a Democrat Party lite.

Conservatives do not want our representatives to develop alternative forms of the Democrat Party’s platform. If we did we would have voted for them. We want conservatives to represent us based upon the foundational values of conservatism. We do not want an alternative to the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obama Care). We want government to get out of the way of health care and let the free market and consumers of health care determine the best practices and prices for health care.

Conservatives do not want an alternative to amnesty. We want the government to enforce immigration laws currently on the books today. The only thing broken with the current immigration system is the government bureaucracy that oversees its implementation. According to the USA Greencard Center approximately 800,000 people immigrate to the United States legally every year. People are able to immigrate legally, but many choose to break American Law and enter the country illegally. These people should not be considered victims of a broken system, but criminals who need to be returned to their country of origin.

Conservatives do not want a modified Democrat Party platform. We want representatives that understand that the greatest gift they can give to their constituents is the opportunity to live as free Americans who have been empowered to take up their God given right to pursue happiness. We want representatives who agree with the founders of this country who stated that the government’s role is to “secure these rights” rather than hinder them. We want representatives who understand that their primary responsibility is to legislate in such a way as to foster a thriving atmosphere for free market entrepreneurial enterprises.

Conservatives want representatives who understand that the Constitution of the United States is the canon by which the governing are keep in line. It is the cornerstone of the American Experiment and does not shift with the sands of time. We long for the days of Patrick Henry when men would rather die than trade freedom for tyranny. We long for leaders who will unite us around the precepts of freedom and freedom’s God, rather than leaders who divide us by race, gender, or economic station. We want leaders who celebrate the success of the successful and inspire others to follow suit, rather than leaders who blame the successful for the lack of success by others.

Conservatives are desperately longing for representatives who will stand firm on the cornerstone of the Constitution as intended by the founders and fight ferociously for the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness endowed to their constituents by their Creator. We are looking for someone who will stand in the breach of the gaping chasm of liberal progressivism and champion the cause of conservatism. Is there any one left among us who is brave enough to stand?

President Obama gave his State of the Union address last night while millions watched and tweeted. There were many things in his speech that caught my attention, but one of the most troubling statements was in regard to climate change. President Obama encouraged the congress to work together in a bipartisan way to “combat climate change” “for the sake of our children and our future.”[1] Then, the one who opposes bulling and unilateral action said the most dangerous phrase of the entire speech in my opinion: “But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions…”[2]

Executive actions, a.k.a executive orders, is a recurrent them in the Obama administration. A quick count of said orders listed on the National Archives web site puts the number around 160 to date.[3] It just seems ironic to me that in one breath he pleads for bipartisan work on global warming (climate change as they prefer) and then declares that he will act in a partisan way if he doesn’t get what he wants when he wants it. Moreover, the president seems be saying let’s work within the frame work of our constitution to get laws passed on this, but if I have to I will shred the constitution to get what I want. This kind of sentiment is coming from a man who just 24 day swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Founders scribed the tenants of the Constitution to prevent this kind of power grab by any one individual and the Constitution was ratified by the states. To my knowledge the verbiage detailing the structure and powers of each branch of government have not been changed or amended in the Constitution. There is no such unilateral law making power given to the executive branch of our government. Dictators and kings may have the executive power to make decree laws unilaterally, but not in these United States of America. Although many claim that such power has been granted via the Executive Vesting Clause (see Article 2 Section 1 Clause 1 of the Constitution) and the Take Care Clause (see Article 2 Section 2 Clause 5 of the Constitution).[4] However, such an interpretation of these clauses is contradictory to the articles surrounding the Article 2 which plainly separate the powers of each branch and delineate the process by which legislation is made and enforced.

Unfortunately too many Americans are either to ignorant or too blinded to understand the degradation of the Constitution by such executive orders. Maybe it is that such things are no longer taught adequately enough the government-run schools. Our founders set up a system of government that provided for the passing of laws in such a way as to allow for the rights and voices of the citizen to be heard through duly elected representatives. If they had wanted a system where one guy could make laws of his own choosing they would have never revolted against the king of England. It seems to me that we need to go back to our roots. We need to let our kids watch Schoolhouse Rock once again.[5] Sadly, we have elected officials who are determined to rewrite the Constitution without ever giving the American people their right to vote on the amendment of this vitally important founding document. Wake-up America! I will close with a modified version of the presidents final sentence in his speak last night; Thank you, God bless you, and may God help these United States of America.